Narrative:

Dispatch planned ATOG (allowable take-off gross) based upon [runway] xxl wet/good winds 220/6 at ZZZ; the result was full structural landing weight limited. Alternate and holding fuel were included in release due to a weather system that was affecting the region and tempo line in the ZZZ taf that included rain and gusty winds. Upon level off; I used the pwb (performance weight and balance) to get early landing data and was surprised to see that it would not produce a valid solution for landing for xxl when run with wet-5 conditions; and instead stated 'overweight'. We verified the weights and determined that aircraft expected weight was less than structural landing limit. Dry conditions; however; did produce a solution. We ran the pwb to attempt to get landing solutions for several other weight and wind combinations on [runway] xxl as well as for [runway] xxc; concluding that the combination of wet with gust component in the winds would not allow for a landing at any reasonable landing weight required to retain divert fuel.after discussing these concerns with dispatch and developing a more proactive plan for divert if the runway did get affected by rain and gusty winds - we proceeded. ZZZ remained in the clear and we executed an uneventful landing on a dry runway; runway xxl; at the planned landing weight under gusty wind conditions. This flight was planned using a structural landing limited ATOG; but in reality was landing performance limited. This nuance is hidden from pilot attention in our dispatch release and even if more transparency were provided; pilots lack effective tools to properly qa (quality assurance) this (and similar scenarios) at the gate and have no means of proactively determining the allowable 'envelope' in performance critical situations. Neither the pwb on ACARS nor the pwb simulation on ipad are reasonably effective tools to perform this type of qa / envelope analysis during preflight at the gate or enroute.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-700 Captain reported issues with planning for compliance with landing weight limits.

Narrative: Dispatch planned ATOG (Allowable Take-off Gross) based upon [Runway] XXL Wet/Good winds 220/6 at ZZZ; the result was full structural landing weight limited. Alternate and holding fuel were included in Release due to a weather system that was affecting the region and TEMPO line in the ZZZ TAF that included rain and gusty winds. Upon level off; I used the PWB (Performance Weight and Balance) to get early landing data and was surprised to see that it would not produce a valid solution for landing for XXL when run with Wet-5 conditions; and instead stated 'overweight'. We verified the weights and determined that aircraft expected weight was less than structural landing limit. Dry conditions; however; did produce a solution. We ran the PWB to attempt to get landing solutions for several other weight and wind combinations on [Runway] XXL as well as for [Runway] XXC; concluding that the combination of wet with gust component in the winds would not allow for a landing at any reasonable landing weight required to retain divert fuel.After discussing these concerns with Dispatch and developing a more proactive plan for divert if the runway did get affected by rain and gusty winds - we proceeded. ZZZ remained in the clear and we executed an uneventful landing on a dry runway; Runway XXL; at the planned landing weight under gusty wind conditions. This flight was planned using a structural landing limited ATOG; but in reality was landing performance limited. This nuance is hidden from pilot attention in our Dispatch Release and even if more transparency were provided; pilots lack effective tools to properly QA (Quality Assurance) this (and similar scenarios) at the gate and have no means of proactively determining the allowable 'envelope' in performance critical situations. Neither the PWB on ACARS nor the PWB simulation on iPad are reasonably effective tools to perform this type of QA / envelope analysis during preflight at the gate or enroute.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.